Just goes to show you the difference between actual Science being done by real scientists, and Pseudo-Science being conducted by "Climate Change" or "Government" scientists. One is forming the opinion on facts, and the other is forming the facts to fit the opinion.

Perhaps it is best to ask what is climate? It is a metaphysical term dealing with local weather patterns over periods of years, the period lengths depending upon whether what the beholder wants occurs or not. Climate, thus, is not a concrete in nature but a averaging (a rational minds mathematical method) of weather patterns in a certain geographical area. Averages exist only in minds and do not exist in nature. Can the metric for a pattern in a chaotic nature in a local area be temperature changes over a period of time, let alone for the whole Earth as the IPCC seems to believe. Of course the main energy input to weather is the Sun and earth-water-atmosphere system will come to different equilibrium states depending upon changes to the environment and show up in weather patterns. The only greenhouse gas of any consequence is water vapor which can change rapidly from nearly none to about 4% depending upon where it is measured. Its main function (if nature had functions) is the cooling of the of the ground, water bodies, and atmosphere through latent heat due to hydrogen bond breaking and reforming to produce liquid water and as liquid water for storing energy with respect to its high heat capacity.
The temperature of air is not just from the one part in 2500 of CO2 in those 2500 molecules and atoms of N2, O2, and Ar which do not absorb well in the infrared, but gain the energy indicated by their temperatures from transfer of energy from the ground by conduction or from transfer of rotational, translational, or vibrational energy from green house gases which occur in very small amounts other than water vapor. Some of the energy absorbed from the Sun by the N2, O2, and Ar is also in the microwave and radio energies in which they emit radiation.
As for faulty data, there has been a very large loss of personal integrity in the last fifty to 100 years. Today, due to political or social pressure of keeping a well paying job, one is nearly required produce reports which fit the required outcome asked for by the employer. For the climate change investigation of the IPCC it is required to fudge reality due to the purpose of the study proposed by them. The study was to find out how humans affected the climate and not to study climate in all ways. Some of the results which are contrary to human caused climate change are buried in foot notes and in references rather than being discussed in the main bodies of the reports, so just a small amount of dishonesty.

The publication was political (big surprise!) but claiming it is faulty is just grasping at straws. It makes people look desperate to find something to falsify AGW. The chart in the article shows rising temps over 18yrs at about 0.15C per decade. The "false" line is offset upwards (for whatever political reason), but BOTH lines show the same rise rate.

That is a good question, that I don't think the Scientific community has yet to define or determine.

Also, please find a video on Climate Change: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d09cJ...

Or the PowerPoint in the video: https://taep.memberclicks.net/assets/...

Yew! Yes! Thieves who don't leave clues do not get caught and go to jail.
My little girl, The Pink Panther!
The You Can't See Me International Lady Of Mystery!
Wait, now I got it~CAT WOMAN!

Yes DuPont's timing was extraordinary. It seems similar to the cover-up's created around Monsanto's and Dow Chemical's Agent Orange (Blue, Green, and all the others that most people have never heard of).

The climate change community is about to get a wakeup call, once Scott Pruitt is confirmed to head the EPA. The Oklahoma Attorney General knows all of the tricks employed by the environazis, and will call them out, line and verse. Will we have clean air and water? You bet, but not at the sacrifice of the U.S. economy and American jobs.

As I mentioned above, it may all be related to solar activity.

In fact there was an article I saw recently where the end of the last great ice age may have been helped along by an underwater CO2 release.

Also, CO2 seems to increase after global temperature rises, not causing the increase. Which then the question: What chemical is actually causing the rise in temperature? That very well may be Water Vapor, which holds more energy than does CO2. And, if we see that solar activity increases, melts the icecaps, creates more water to turn into water vapor, which in turn creates more warming. Much easier to explain and see the correlation too, than CO2.

I would first have her look into a mirror and talk to her about telling lies while washing her face and hands.
I'd tell her to think about it during a short time out.
She's way too young for anything more strict.

Since you brought that up, I just had to go look on YouTube to see what was there.
Rappers appear obsessed with the cookie jar.
Me dino hates rap.
Further down the column I found a much better video~
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wi3Qo...

More like me looking up at the ceiling and whistling as I walk away from a dirty deed.
Oh, well~can't win 'em all.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2f-M...

1) The sun and Techtonics play the major role in the changing climate. Periods of high sunspot activity tend to make the Earth warmer, while low sunspot activity tends to make the Earth cooler. It all depends on the amount of radiation that the sun puts out. Also, tectonic activity is the second most important factor, which may also be influenced by the sun, if recent studies hold true. The more that the continents shift and move and more volcanic activity (currently occurring) tend to warm up the earth, while periods of greater quite tend to cool the earth. Part of the reasoning is that the Water Vapor and other greenhouse gasses that get released during volcanism, and shifts in the position of the crust tend to heat the atmosphere. It has been hypothesized that the natural condition of the Earth is without icecaps, and at any point in history when there are icecaps it is an Ice Age.

Now humans may have a small effect on climate, but more likely in localized settings, not worldwide. Heat zones, loss of vegetation, particulate concentrations, and massive structures within cities could create a change in weather patterns both within and outside the city (more towards the direction of the prevailing winds). Hence more probability for severe storms. But once again, localized.

2) Those who benefit are: "Poor Countries"/ Dictators who through world regulations receive money from "Rich Countries" for whom are responsible for the "Changing Climate", so they can "Help" their people achieve what the "Rich Countries" have. Politicians who get kickbacks from organizations and people pushing the "Climate Change" initiative. Companies and Organizations that study and push the "Climate Change" initiative by deceiving or fear mongering the public into donations. Scientists and Academic Institutions who "Study" and report on "Climate Change", because they will get grant money or donations in order to keep studying and reporting on the "issue".